Utilitarian And Rights Ethics Analysis

In the following paragraph’s, I will examine A-1s trailer predicament using the utilitarian and rights ethics theories as a framework for my analysis, argument and finally decision. To begin my analysis, I will define my decision as two separate course of action, or COAs. I will call them COA 1 and COA 2. COA 1 defined is acceptance of the defect. Under COA 1, A-1 will doing nothing about the trailer defect, accept risks and be prepared to provide the complete monetary value estimated. COA 2 defined is complete recall of the product. Utilitarianism
Under the utilitarianism theory, I will use three figures, or factors, for the basis of my decision. The three factors being the overall trailer failure rate, the total amount of estimated fatalities, and the monetary value associated …show more content…
Again, those factors being the overall trailer failure rate, the total amount of estimated fatalities, and the monetary value associated with each of the courses of action. Since the rights theorist believes in absolute individual rights, a failure rate of 8 to 10% is unacceptable. Because there are negatively affected parties involved, however miniscule, a reparation in the form of recalling all the flawed trailers must be done, hence COA 2 is justified. The fatality rate is the strongest rationalization factor for my decision as a rights theorist. Because rights theorist are most considerate of injured minorities, the act of committing educated negligence is deplorable. Rationalization is achieved for COA 2 with just 1 fatality, let alone over 20. Monetary figures do not affect my decision as a rights theorist. Although they my business fiscally, I have violated human rights by knowingly selling a dangerous product. Therefore, under the rights ethics theory, the prudent act is COA